Should We Leave the EU?

StateOfPlay · 6 Mar 2016

krus_aragon said:
May I recommend a program broadcast on Radio 4 last month? It's called How to make a Brexit, and discusses the practicalities of leaving the EU in the event of a no vote. It's still available on the Iplayer at the moment, and there is also a transcript transcript is available elsewhere.

Thank you for that, very informative.

RailUK Forums

Busaholic · 6 Mar 2016

John Longworth, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, has now stood down from that position, having accepted he was wrong to have presented his personal view on a referendum on a public platform when his organisation had stated they would not advocate a position to take. It all makes Boris Johnson's overheated waffle on the matter bring him ever closer to being Britain's answer to Donald Trump - alas, like Trump, he seems to be able to fool some of the people all of the time.

TheKnightWho · 6 Mar 2016

furnessvale said:
I have no desire to join a United States of Europe. Other have and that is their choice.

On 23rd June we will each have a vote and I will abide by the result.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is integration a bad thing?

yorksrob · 7 Mar 2016

TheKnightWho said:
That doesn't answer the question. Why is integration a bad thing?

To take a small but localised example, I preferred the system whereby post was assessed and priced by weight only, yet because of greater integration, we have been forced to grade mail by the altogether less convenient method of size and shape.

By and large, I would prefer us to decide such matters on their merits, rather than because someone else does it.

radamfi · 7 Mar 2016

If you have common standards that improves the effectiveness of the single market. For example, if we didn't have the CE marking but instead each country having its own regulations, products would have to be produced differently for each country.

tony_mac · 7 Mar 2016

yorksrob said:
To take a small but localised example, I preferred the system whereby post was assessed and priced by weight only, yet because of greater integration, we have been forced to grade mail by the altogether less convenient method of size and shape.

I think that's a bit of a weird example.
Royal Mail said that the charges were introduced because large letters can't be sorted by their machines, and it costs more to sort them by hand.
I'm struggling to see how that can be related to 'greater integration'.

47802 · 7 Mar 2016

tony_mac said:
I think that's a bit of a weird example.
Royal Mail said that the charges were introduced because large letters can't be sorted by their machines, and it costs more to sort them by hand.
I'm struggling to see how that can be related to 'greater integration'.

I think that's an example of blaming all change that people don't like on EU regulation

furnessvale · 7 Mar 2016

radamfi said:
If you have common standards that improves the effectiveness of the single market. For example, if we didn't have the CE marking but instead each country having its own regulations, products would have to be produced differently for each country.

Must be absolute hell for China, India, and the USA outside the EU.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TheKnightWho said:
That doesn't answer the question. Why is integration a bad thing?

Didn't realise I was in an exam situation!

Integration at an economic level is all but complete.

Project Europe is now continuing with the political integration they desire, and Cameron's worthless piece of paper will not stop discrimination against any country that does not toe the line.

I personally do not want that and will be voting out.

Tetchytyke · 7 Mar 2016

yorksrob said:
To take a small but localised example, I preferred the system whereby post was assessed and priced by weight only, yet because of greater integration, we have been forced to grade mail by the altogether less convenient method of size and shape.

It's really quite amazing what the Brexit lot manage to blame the EU for.

That was a commercial decision made by Royal Mail to increase revenue. Nothing else.

tony_mac · 7 Mar 2016

furnessvale said:
Didn't realise I was in an exam situation!

It's just as well, as I don't think you would pass - you haven't actually said anything except 'I think it's a bad idea' in different ways.

(There is maybe an actual point in the 'discrimination' line, but I'm not sure exactly sure what it is. If there was more integration than maybe it would be difficult to get out of further, undesired integration? Which still doesn't address the point why integration is a bad idea.)

Maybe a gap-fill would be better?

More integration is a bad idea, because ___ will/might happen. This will/might lead to ___ and ___. And because of the following consequences, ____, I think this is a bad idea .

(I can think of several reasons why more integration could be harmful, but I'm curious to know what yours are).
Note: not to be taken very seriously!

DynamicSpirit · 7 Mar 2016

tony_mac said:
It's just as well, as I don't think you would pass - you haven't actually said anything except 'I think it's a bad idea' in different ways.

To me, this is the crux of it. Various people here have said that they want out of the EU because they don't want more integration/rules being made in Brussels instead of Westminster/etc., but as far as I'm aware, no one on the 'out' side has explained why that should be a bad thing.

Look at it this way: If some regulation is good and is helping me in some way, then I don't care whether that regulation was formulated in my local town hall, my local county council offices, Westminster, or Brussels. All I care about is that it's a good regulation.

Conversely, if some regulation is bad and is (in my view) harming people, then I also don't particularly care in which set of offices that regulation was formed (other than for purposes of: Who do I lobby to get it changed? My councillors, my MP or my MEP?). I simply care that it's a bad regulation and I'd like it changed.

The only reason I can see it mattering if regulations come from Brussels would be if there is some serious grounds for believing that the EU is more likely in principle to produce bad regulations and less likely to produce good regulations than Westminster is. But no one here has to my knowledge suggested any plausible grounds for why that should be the case. Indeed, the anger that is usually directed against supposedly out-of-touch Westminster MPs rather suggests that there is in fact no reason to think that regulations coming out of Westminster would be any better.

So what is the reason for thinking that taking powers from Brussels and handing them to David Cameron and his cabinet would make things better?

miami · 7 Mar 2016

HowardGWR said:
The current refugee crisis, including bogus asylum seekers from the Balkans and North Africa

I saw this data on BBC today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911

It shows the number of asylum applications in the UK was 60 per 100,000 population. That's lower than Norway (602), Switzerland (479) and even Iceland (105).

Logic could suggest that if we leave the EU these applications will go up. They're unlikely to go down, that's for sure.

Dave1987 said:
And why do hundreds of thousands of people want to come here? Why are there a couple of thousand people currently camped out at Calais trying to cross the channel to the UK even though they are already in a civilised country i.e France, where they could claim asylum etc unless they are trying to get here because of how good our country is and how well we treat people.

Well the simple answer is they don't. As a whole they'd far rather go to non-EU countries, or indeed almost anywhere else in the EU.

tony_mac · 7 Mar 2016

DynamicSpirit said:
The only reason I can see it mattering if regulations come from Brussels would be if there is some serious grounds for believing that the EU is more likely in principle to produce bad regulations and less likely to produce good regulations than Westminster is. But no one suggested any plausible grounds why that should be the case.

Well, there are some obvious grounds:- the voters of the UK make up a relatively small portion of the EU, and hence it is possible that rules will be agreed that, for some reason, are advantageous for the rest of the EU, but not the UK.

I think, mostly, that doesn't happen - and EU rules are generally made to keep everyone happy, so are generally sensible. We don't hear of the vast majority of them because they are already implemented to the same, or higher, standard in the UK. It is also sometimes the local interpretation of the rules that causes the problems, which can then be blamed on the EU.

Tetchytyke · 7 Mar 2016

tony_mac said:
Well, there are some obvious grounds:- the voters of the UK make up a relatively small portion of the EU, and hence it is possible that rules will be agreed that, for some reason, are advantageous for the rest of the EU, but not the UK.

I think that's basically it. The wider the electorate the more diverse interests there are, meaning there are likely to be more compromises. An EU government has to keep everyone in 27 states happy, a UK government just has to keep everyone in the UK happy, a Parish Council just has to keep everyone in the village happy. It's the same principle behind why so many Scots wanted devolution.

The thing I don't understand is the people who want Brexit because they don't trust the UK government and think the UK government only helps Big Business. If you think that, i don't understand why you'd then want to give that government more executive control.

keithboddey · 7 Mar 2016

I noticed after the Paris terrorist attacks how it was suddenly all about the tricolor...what happened to that blue EU Flag then?

Senex · 7 Mar 2016

keithboddey said:
I noticed after the Paris terrorist attacks how it was suddenly all about the tricolor...what happened to that blue EU Flag then?

And remember the music -- it was all about the Marseillaise and nothing at all of the Ode to Joy.

Steveman · 8 Mar 2016

DynamicSpirit said:
Absolute certainty? What planet are you living on??? All we have is a completely unsubstantiated allegation from Boris. The facts, as we know it are that John Longworth has been temporarily suspended (so not, as you claim, axed), for a reason that appears very reasonable: The BCC wish to remain impartial, and that clearly means that if a board member who is in a position to speak for the BCC breaks that impartiality, then that board member's position might well become untenable.

Looks like I'm actually on the right planet after all with the revelation that a Downing Street aide Daniel Korski phoned the BCC "about getting clarity on BCC's position on the referendum" within hours of the speech as I predicted.
As soon as that speech was made it would have been blindingly obvious that within hours the phones would have been ringing out of Downing street, interestingly Korski was the author of one of the infamous Project Fear letters where Generals who hadn't backed the IN campaign were included anyway for good measure.

Also it now appears that other members of this organisation ARE allowed to campaign for the IN side with no fear of repercussions whatsoever so you're wrong on that one as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12186850/Exclusive-David-Cameron-aide-complained-about-John-Longworth-to-British-Chambers-of-Commerce-hours-before-he-was-suspended.html

An aide to David Cameron made a complaint about one of Britain's biggest business leaders hours before he was suspended for speaking out in favour of a Brexit, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. Daniel Korski, one of the Prime Minister's special advisers, contacted Mr Longworth to raise concerns about remarks that were critical of the "in" campaign that he had made on the radio before his keynote speech to the BCC conference the day before on Thursday.
It has emerged that two local chairmen in the BCC's network of chambers of commerce had been allowed to back the Remain campaign and had not been suspended. It has emerged that the BCC had allowed its chairmen of the Kent and Cornwall Chambers of Commerce to endorse publicly the Remain campaign.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481342/ANDREW-PIERCE-PM-s-shadowy-hitman-phone-call-ended-career-pro-Brexit-business-chief.html

Korski – described by one Tory MP as the most ‘ardent EU enthusiast to ever work for a Tory Prime Minister’ – was incensed when he found out what was in the speech
Friends of the former director-general say Korski made clear that he was speaking with the full authority of the Prime Minister and vented his ‘anger, frustration and irritation’, accusing him of deviating from the BCC’s strict code of impartiality.
Perhaps we should not be surprised to learn that Korski, whose telephone call effectively ended Longworth’s career at the BCC, has spent years campaigning for closer links with the EU.

Before he joined Cameron in Downing Street in 2013, he was a key adviser to Labour’s Baroness Ashton when she was high representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Her brief was to extend even further the influence of the EU into our national life.

A key part of Korski’s brief is to operate in the shadows at 10 Downing Street, enforcing the will of the Prime Minister.

Last September he telephoned the heads of some of Britain’s biggest businesses to urge them not to speak up at that point in favour of the Remain side in the EU referendum. Cameron was concerned that if business leaders spoke too soon, they risked damaging his renegotiation process with Europe.

He wanted the businesses to pile in behind the Remain campaign when he returned victorious from Brussels with a major reform package. ‘Even then, Downing Street was trying to orchestrate the timing of announcements in the referendum,’ says a source.

Blamethrower · 8 Mar 2016

Arctic Troll said:
I think that's basically it. The wider the electorate the more diverse interests there are, meaning there are likely to be more compromises. An EU government has to keep everyone in 27 states happy, a UK government just has to keep everyone in the UK happy, a Parish Council just has to keep everyone in the village happy. It's the same principle behind why so many Scots wanted devolution.

The thing I don't understand is the people who want Brexit because they don't trust the UK government and think the UK government only helps Big Business. If you think that, i don't understand why you'd then want to give that government more executive control.

It's called accountability.

Why would anyone want anything else?

If they don't do their job, you can vote them out.

With "EU in" vote, you vote for less accountability and more voter apathy. I can't believe that if you want democracy, creating another level of bureaucracy will facilitate it?

miami · 8 Mar 2016

Blamethrower said:
When did you last vote for an MEP?

Blamethrower said:
It's called accountability.

Why would anyone want anything else?

If they don't do their job, you can vote them out.

With "EU in" vote, you vote for less accountability and more voter apathy. I can't believe that if you want democracy, creating another level of bureaucracy will facilitate it?

I'm confused. You seem to think that we don't have a vote in the european parliament? Have you only just moved to Europe and thus missed the last election?

NSEFAN · 8 Mar 2016

Blamethrower said:
With "EU in" vote, you vote for less accountability and more voter apathy. I can't believe that if you want democracy, creating another level of bureaucracy will facilitate it?

But the EU will still exist if we leave it, and continue to make decisions that will affect us. Being out of the EU, we'd have no say in those decisions at all. Is that not less democratic than our current situation?

Groningen · 8 Mar 2016

The Tories in the UK are the same what the Republicans are in the USA; devided. It is not as dirty as the USA, but still. I find it strange that Cameron strikes a deal with the other countries and than holds a referendum to get support for that deal. If the referendum says no to the EU (and deal); what than?! Than Cameron should step down and were all efforts in vain.

DynamicSpirit · 8 Mar 2016

Steveman said:
Looks like I'm actually on the right planet after all with the revelation that a Downing Street aide Daniel Korski phoned the BCC "about getting clarity on BCC's position on the referendum" within hours of the speech as I predicted.

Not really. In your previous post, you stated, on the basis of no evidence at all:

Steveman said:
With today's claims about pressure being applied from the Govt it looks an absolute certainty that the axe has fell on British Chambers of Commerce director general John Longworth after Downing Street picked the phone up probably within minutes of the speech.

And although you did not say so explicitly, you were clearly implying that John Longworth was sacked because of Government pressure. What the two articles you have cited reveal is that someone from the Government phoned BCC to seek clarification of the what was going on, which is not remotely the same thing (and is arguably a completely legitimate thing for a Government advisor to do).

I on the other hand openly acknowledged in my previous post that, based on what little we knew, the possibility of some interference couldn't be ruled out.

Steveman said:
Also it now appears that other members of this organisation ARE allowed to campaign for the IN side with no fear of repercussions whatsoever so you're wrong on that one as well.

Now I agree that that is inconsistent and looks at best odd and at worst hypocritical. There's a possible explanation in that the members concerned apparently hold much more junior positions within the BCC, which may imply they have more freedom to speak out without their comments being interpreted as the BCC's position, but I don't know enough about the BCC's internal organization to pass judgement on that (and I'm fairly sure you don't either).

None of this looks particularly worth the headlines that it's generated. Perhaps instead of trying to make such an issue of something that likely to be at best innocent and at worst a case of an organization behaving inconsistently, compounded by Government advisor making a phone call that may or may not have been legitimate, you'd be better off spending your time suggesting some actual, rational, reasons for believing that we should leave the EU? They seem to be in short supply at the moment... (Which I assume is one reason why the anti-EU politicians are focusing their efforts on quibbling about this kind of thing).

miami · 8 Mar 2016

Some worrying concerns. Like many I think the government are incopmetent muppets that couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag.

Apparently it took Greenland 3 years to negotiate to be allowed to export a single product (fish).

Apparently the second we leave the EU, which will be 2 years after we give notice, we will be facing trade tariffs.

We have 2 years to negotiate thousands of treaties. This government. One that couldn't even win a referendum. Assuming it stays together.

http://www.voxeu.org/article/why-do-trade-negotiations-take-so-long

Our data sample covers 88 regional trade agreements from 1988 to 2009. On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.

So the majority of trade deals will take far longer than 24 months to negotiate.

It's all very well saying "we can negoitate deals", but how long will it take?

What's the benefits of leaving again?

Tetchytyke · 9 Mar 2016

I'm just waiting for the Brexiteers to come along and denounce Boris Johnson for ~~bullying~~ robusting suggesting that his advisers must agree with him about Brexit.

Still waiting.

This thread has convinced me to vote to remain in the EU, anyway. The tinfoil hattery of the Brexit lot make the Scottish Independence supporters look rational and balanced.

Groningen · 9 Mar 2016

What about those 1 million pensioners in Spain? How would a Brexit effect them if the UK does make a Brexit.

furnessvale · 9 Mar 2016

Groningen said:
What about those 1 million pensioners in Spain? How would a Brexit effect them if the UK does make a Brexit.

Not in the slightest.

Pensioners laying in the sun are effectively permanent holidaymakers. Even now, if something serious happens to them healthwise they jump on the first plane to the UK for the NHS.

If Spain wishes to give up that revenue by expelling them, more fool Spain, but I calculate it would result in a further boost to the UK balance of payments of around £10bn.

Steveman · 9 Mar 2016

As Scotland has a majority wanting IN then that place could stop England getting an OUT vote.
As Scotland has continually said an OUT vote would trigger a referendum on that basis an IN vote would trigger a massive call by English people for a referendum on independence from Scotland.

Independence from Scotland would be a massive win on all fronts for England.

furnessvale · 9 Mar 2016

Steveman said:
As Scotland has a majority wanting IN then that place could stop England getting an OUT vote.
As Scotland has continually said an OUT vote would trigger a referendum on that basis an IN vote would trigger a massive call by English people for a referendum on independence from Scotland.

Independence from Scotland would be a massive win on all fronts for England.

I have always treated the union with Scotland as a marriage of equals. Wasn't the first king from Scotland?

Either way, I thought both parties had a say in a divorce.

Steveman · 9 Mar 2016

furnessvale said:
I have always treated the union with Scotland as a marriage of equals. Wasn't the first king from Scotland?

Either way, I thought both parties had a say in a divorce.

Like the way the English had a say in the recent attempt by Scotland to divorce us you mean ?

England is perfectly within its rights to divorce Scotland and when we have an IN vote and the next day the media tell us Scotland turned the referendum from OUT to IN that is going to trigger unrest in England.
I know everybody should simply go along with result either way but since the Scottish referendum there are now a lot of very unhappy Scots who want a re-run. I can't see the English taking it any different.

ExRes · 9 Mar 2016

Arctic Troll said:
I'm just waiting for the Brexiteers to come along and denounce Boris Johnson for ~~bullying~~ robusting suggesting that his advisers must agree with him about Brexit.

Still waiting.

This thread has convinced me to vote to remain in the EU, anyway. The tinfoil hattery of the Brexit lot make the Scottish Independence supporters look rational and balanced.

It must be a great disappointment to you that Boris Johnson actually made no such 'suggestion'

Should We Leave the EU?

Do you believe the UK should stay in or leave the EU?

Stay in the EU

Leave the EU

I don't know

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member